On a slight tangent, are we ready to admit that exchanges of patent rights are a taxable transaction? There are somewhere between trillions and infinity dollars worth of rights being exchanged between the big boys through various patent covenants and pools. A cancellation of your credit card debt is recognized as an insidey-outey form of income, why are the behemoths getting away with murder? Golly, the patent system could even assign a value to use in evaluating a patent suit - what value did you choose to be taxed at?

"If I have seen further, it is because I was standing on my own giant shoulders" - IBM

On a slight tangent, are we ready to admit that exchanges of patent rights are a taxable transaction? There are somewhere between trillions and infinity dollars worth of rights being exchanged between the big boys through various patent covenants and pools. A cancellation of your credit card debt is recognized as an insidey-outey form of income, why are the behemoths getting away with murder? Golly, the patent system could even assign a value to use in evaluating a patent suit - what value did you choose to be taxed at?

Now there's an idea which has legs. Why don't we have a property tax on intellectual property? If you want to keep the property, pay a tax on it. If the tax is too much of a burden because you don't actually make any money off the patent, then you can always let the patent (or copyright, or whatever) lapse into the public domain. The tax should both increase revenue and discourage hoarding low-value IP. The public domain should benefit as older or low value patents and copyrights are allowed to lapse in lieu of paying the tax on them.

I'm generally against software patents, but I must say that the arguments given by the Judges supporting them were pretty good.

However, I think the main problem is "obviousness". With software (and some other) patents, the Patent Office does not seem to have the ability to determine if something is obvious. So many of the software patents that come up could have been coded by a first year CS student. So many of them are simply just databases, like a patent to determine if a particular user should have access to a video.

It's funny that Mr. Mullin suggests the Supreme Court has given clear guidance with his assertion without a supporting reference, "in the wake of several Supreme Court rulings giving more strict guidance about the patent system."

Is Mr. Mullin referring to Bilski? If anything, Bilski explicitly allowed for business method patents but only muddied the waters on how to determine when they should be allowed.

On a slight tangent, are we ready to admit that exchanges of patent rights are a taxable transaction? There are somewhere between trillions and infinity dollars worth of rights being exchanged between the big boys through various patent covenants and pools. A cancellation of your credit card debt is recognized as an insidey-outey form of income, why are the behemoths getting away with murder? Golly, the patent system could even assign a value to use in evaluating a patent suit - what value did you choose to be taxed at?

Now there's an idea which has legs. Why don't we have a property tax on intellectual property? If you want to keep the property, pay a tax on it. If the tax is too much of a burden because you don't actually make any money off the patent, then you can always let the patent (or copyright, or whatever) lapse into the public domain. The tax should both increase revenue and discourage hoarding low-value IP. The public domain should benefit as older or low value patents and copyrights are allowed to lapse in lieu of paying the tax on them.

Great idea, but will never happen -- it would be called a barrier to innovation, punitive to small business, and against the free market, amongst other derisions.

Does folks really believe that there would be less innovation/progress in software (and associated hardware) development if software were fundamentally unpatentable? My recollection is that software innovation proceeded along quite well before patents came into vogue but maybe that is just the mists of memory.

we can agree that its not patentable....but we cant agree why it isn't patentable? Am I reading this correctly or no?

Yes, you are. That essentially means that they decided the CASE but didn't produce a precedent. There has to be a legal reasoning that can be applied in the future for a precedent to exist, and the judges could not agree on what the reasoning was.

More generic commentary on the case:

I am not completely against patents, even software patents, though I do think the system has gotten out of control and that a lot of bad patents are issued. So, take my commentary with that bias in mind.

I haven't read the actual summary, so it's quite possible I just dont have the information -- but it feels like the judges in favor of stricter patent guidelines gave their reasoning, ie, "the recent Supreme Court decisions mean this," while the ones opposed to it are simply worried about the effect they can have on the patent system as a whole.

If the Supreme Court has said something, it is not the place of the lower court to claim "but think about the industries that have these patents!" Theirs is to uphold the law as the Supreme Court has interpreted it. Congress' job is to clarify the law to the extent that the Constitution allows if they feel that those interpretations are not the intention of the laws.

Now I'm not so naive as to assume that a Supreme Court decision can't be interpreted multiple ways, but I'd much prefer to hear about their legal reasoning as to why the decisions in question do not apply rather than their concern for the outcome of their decision. I don't mind a court considering the impact of its decisions, but not in the contravention of law. The only quotes I see that even attempt to address that end are from Judge Rader.

In her section of the decision, Moore grieves for "the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents" that would take place, she believes, if the side voting to block Alice Corp.'s patents prevailed.

Oh, crap, if we strike down one useless, innovation-killing patent, then we'd probably have to strike down a bunch of other useless, innovation-killing patents. THINK OF THAT, YOU MONSTERS!

It's becoming increasingly clear that real patent reform needs to come from the legislative branch. Of course it's also depressingly obvious that the legislative branch has about zero ability to do anything productive these days, so in all likelyhood thte status quo will remain.

EDIT: Disregard, the original post below. I switched the directions white and black were heading halfway through.However, it's still a hopeless position. If white's king stays where it is, black can dither endlessly with its king. If white's king moves to support the pawn at b7, black can dither endlessly with its bishop.

I had noticed that as well, and was confused for a bit. On further reflection, it's not an actual stalemate (legal moves for both sides exist), but it is a position from which neither side can win. White cannot dislodge the black king or promote and subsequently protect its pawn at b7 without help from his own king, which would allow the black pawn to advance. If white overcommits its king, I don't think it can stop the black pawn from promoting before it can promote its own pawn.

So, you get 10 judges to essentially agree that, in this one case, there could be no patent. Then they essentially just write opinions on why or why not this should extend to other patents but in such a way that the Supreme Court cannot take it up yet. I call that passing the buck to Congress, which will only vote to make silly software patents even easier to get because they won't want to piss off their business interests.

On a slight tangent, are we ready to admit that exchanges of patent rights are a taxable transaction? There are somewhere between trillions and infinity dollars worth of rights being exchanged between the big boys through various patent covenants and pools. A cancellation of your credit card debt is recognized as an insidey-outey form of income, why are the behemoths getting away with murder? Golly, the patent system could even assign a value to use in evaluating a patent suit - what value did you choose to be taxed at?

Now there's an idea which has legs. Why don't we have a property tax on intellectual property? If you want to keep the property, pay a tax on it. If the tax is too much of a burden because you don't actually make any money off the patent, then you can always let the patent (or copyright, or whatever) lapse into the public domain. The tax should both increase revenue and discourage hoarding low-value IP. The public domain should benefit as older or low value patents and copyrights are allowed to lapse in lieu of paying the tax on them.

This is called a maintenance fee and already exists. In fact, the prices of maintenance fees went through the roof in March. The problem with commenters on here is that they just don't understand patent law at all.

I think it's a very clear indicator of technological ignorance to say that a simple business/financial procedure is patentable simply because it's on a computer, or uses computers. Why does a computer make it unique? You can't have the same patent if Sally delivers some reports to Jane, but if there's a computer involved generating those reports automatically, all the sudden the same PROCESS can be patented?

Somewhat related, but technology patents get a lot of scrutiny if they're even remotely close to another patented technological device/product/process out there. How does all this work with cars? Do all other manufacturers have to pay Karl Benz's estate royalties? After all, he was the first person to manufacture a gasoline powered car. Do all automobiles have to have a number of wheels other than the standard 4 to be sufficiently unique as to be exempt from this royalty? Or do all car manufacturers spend close to 100% of their time pilfering, remaking, and re-releasing ideas that other manufacturers have already come out with? I'm distinctly reminded of the Jobs quote that he would ruin Android for being a "stolen" product.. I don't see Mercedez-Benz launching lawsuit after lawsuit upon car manufacturers that choose to put 4 wheels on their vehicles, or choose to have an internal combustion engine.

It is only fair that business methods become patentable, just as legal/judicial methods become patentable as well.. Possibly after creating an even bigger mess, the circuit judges will realize how much of an amazingly bad an idea software patents are.

EDIT: Disregard, the original post below. I switched the directions white and black were heading halfway through.However, it's still a hopeless position. If white's king stays where it is, black can dither endlessly with its king. If white's king moves to support the pawn at b7, black can dither endlessly with its bishop.

I had noticed that as well, and was confused for a bit. On further reflection, it's not an actual stalemate (legal moves for both sides exist), but it is a position from which neither side can win. White cannot dislodge the black king or promote and subsequently protect its pawn at b7 without help from his own king, which would allow the black pawn to advance. If white overcommits its king, I don't think it can stop the black pawn from promoting before it can promote its own pawn.

Which is actually a stalemate. If neither player can advance their position towards checkmate then the game is a stalemate by definition, it doesn't have to be impossible for one side to make ANY more, just for neither to make progress. This particular position is a rather classic stalemate actually. Neither sides bishop can threaten the other side's pieces, and both are pinned to diagonals in any case. White can free up its king, but can't do anything useful with it, and black can technically jigger around a bit with its king as well, but to no useful effect. Otherwise its just meaningless shifting of bishops.

However, it's still a hopeless position. If white's king stays where it is, black can dither endlessly with its king. If white's king moves to support the pawn at b7, black can dither endlessly with its bishop.

To put it to rest, what is shown is a certain draw resulting at least from threefold repetition. In my experience, it's quite common to hear people refer to this kind of a draw as a "stalemate". Indeed, until I looked up the actual term for it, I thought it was also called a stalemate, having never been a very serious chess player. But even forgetting about the distinction between stalemate and threefold repetition, common definitions of stalemate include things like "a drawn contest; deadlock". While it is completely fair to say that the technical, chess-specific definition of stalemate does not apply to the picture, it is also fair to say that the general definition of stalemate does indeed apply.

However, it's still a hopeless position. If white's king stays where it is, black can dither endlessly with its king. If white's king moves to support the pawn at b7, black can dither endlessly with its bishop.

To put it to rest, what is shown is a certain draw resulting at least from threefold repetition. In my experience, it's quite common to hear people refer to this kind of a draw as a "stalemate". Indeed, until I looked up the actual term for it, I thought it was also called a stalemate, having never been a very serious chess player. But even forgetting about the distinction between stalemate and threefold repetition, common definitions of stalemate include things like "a drawn contest; deadlock". While it is completely fair to say that the technical, chess-specific definition of stalemate does not apply to the picture, it is also fair to say that the general definition of stalemate does indeed apply.

Agreed. Though it raises a funny issue with the term 'stalemate', which was originally a chess term meaning absolutely no progress is possible. It then got co-opted by sports, politics, etc. to describe a deadlocked situation where progress is possible but extremely unlikely based on available evidence. Now apparently the broader definition is sometimes informally applied in chess to a deadlock where moves and checkmates are theoretically possible but practically impossible. It's some sort of weird, circular etymological chain.

Now there's an idea which has legs. Why don't we have a property tax on intellectual property? If you want to keep the property, pay a tax on it. If the tax is too much of a burden because you don't actually make any money off the patent, then you can always let the patent (or copyright, or whatever) lapse into the public domain. The tax should both increase revenue and discourage hoarding low-value IP. The public domain should benefit as older or low value patents and copyrights are allowed to lapse in lieu of paying the tax on them.

Great idea, but will never happen -- it would be called a barrier to innovation, punitive to small business, and against the free market, amongst other derisions.

Moreover, at least at the Federal level, a property tax (although certainly not an excise on transfers) on patents might very well be considered a direct tax, and so very difficult to make constitutional.

If neither player can advance their position towards checkmate then the game is a stalemate by definition, it doesn't have to be impossible for one side to make ANY more, just for neither to make progress.

The definition of stalemate in chess is that it's your move and there are no legal moves. Even stupid or worthless moves count, and if you have one you must make it, unless the players agree to a draw.

In fact, the position could be winnable on time by one side in some modern "bullet" chess formats where there is no increment. There's also a chance a player makes a mistake, of course.

While it is completely fair to say that the technical, chess-specific definition of stalemate does not apply to the picture, it is also fair to say that the general definition of stalemate does indeed apply.

Call it what it is: a draw........not a stalemate. It becomes a stalemate only when the player to move has no legal move.

How would invalidating patents decimate any industry except the patent troll industry?

It would open up the software world and allow people to program without fear, constantly having to wonder if anyone else has already thought up and patented the same steps they are taking to accomplish something.

The benefit of patents is to stop people from benefiting off of others creation. If you invent a new type of vacuum cleaner and I copy the same new mechanism you used to get superior suction, I'm profitting off of your work without ever having spent to develop and test it like you did.

In the software world, other than stealing someone's code, if you implement the same process I do, you're going to incur the same expense in developing, unit testing, UAT, end to end testing, and then the risk deploying it to a production environment where, if something messes up, could cost you money.

If companies can show that their software is doing something INNOVATIVE then they should have patent protection. Otherwise, its just another financial tactic to try and get money and does nothing to promote business or free market or hell, fairness. And frankly, innovation in software is, in my opinion, limited to new standards, new programming languages, new operating systems, etc. Basically, changing how things are done. A bounce menu animation is not innovative in the least.

While it is completely fair to say that the technical, chess-specific definition of stalemate does not apply to the picture, it is also fair to say that the general definition of stalemate does indeed apply.

Call it what it is: a draw........not a stalemate. It becomes a stalemate only when the player to move has no legal move.

I believe the original question was on the appropriateness of the picture given the use of "stalemate" in the headline. It is quite clear from the headline which sense of "stalemate" is being used, as there is no actual game of chess mentioned in the article. So, then, using the sense of the word as it has made its way into general usage (and as actually used in the headline), the image does indeed seem appropriate, as the game is in a deadlock.

To make it even worse, an image showing the original meaning of "stalemate" doesn't fit the situation with the judges as well as the given image, where the players still have valid moves, but cannot come to any conclusion except a draw (unless someone makes a mistake).

Perhaps we could talk about the damn article and relocate the chess discussion to, oh I dunno, a forum thread for the discussion of what a stalemate is.

We are indeed discussing the article. The article used the word "stalemate" and contained a picture of a chess game. What's it to you if some people found a different part of the article interesting than you did? That's (at least in part) what the block functionality is for. You're free to totally ignore the chess discussion if you wish. It's a little rude, though, to inject yourself into it when you have no desire to do anything but say that you think it's boring.